• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

dingdongo said:
Shocking how they ended up with these people as the best they have!

They could end up with a choice between Truss and Mordaunt
Click to expand...
Mourdaunt has plenty of intelligence and integrity. Sunak is also a good option if he can keep his tax and spend under control.

I don't think any of the other parties can currently put anyone up of nearly their standard.
 
scaramanga said:
Mourdaunt has plenty of intelligence and integrity. Sunak is also a good option if he can keep his tax and spend under control.

I don't think any of the other parties can currently put anyone up of nearly their standard.
Click to expand...

If she had any integrity she would have resigned from the government and as for the other parties. It no longer matters the state of them because it literally has to be anyone but the Conservatives. They have been in power for over a decade and have no answers to the structural difficulties this country has, they can fcuk off.
 
scaramanga said:
"The list" goes as follows:

1) Reduce global population

That's it. It's the answer nobody wants to talk about, but it's the only solution.
Click to expand...

population is a part of it. But consumption is a bigger part. We have a developed a society that is throw away, that values what’s new and not what’s valuable.
 
dingdongo said:
Shocking how they ended up with these people as the best they have!

They could end up with a choice between Truss and Mordaunt
Click to expand...
It's Bad-Enoch-Powell and Truss I'm genuinely scared about. They are properly unhinged.

For me the other 3 sit in the better than BJ pile. At least those 3 are all socially liberal
 
Rorschach said:
She is taking money from them, but maybe they all are.
Click to expand...
She stopped the Aquind project in Portsmouth, which would have seen clean, nuclear generated electricity from France being bought in.

But I think that was NIMBYism as it would have meant digging up most of the city (not that anyone would have noticed).
 
DTA said:
population is a part of it. But consumption is a bigger part. We have a developed a society that is throw away, that values what’s new and not what’s valuable.
Click to expand...
People won't change until it's far too late.

For that matter, why should development step backwards? It's far better that 5bn people live a good life than 8bn live a bricky one.
 
scaramanga said:
She stopped the Aquind project in Portsmouth, which would have seen clean, nuclear generated electricity from France being bought in.

But I think that was NIMBYism as it would have meant digging up most of the city (not that anyone would have noticed).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure digging up your house counts as nimbyism.

She's taking money from First Corporate Consultants, owned by Terence Mordaunt. No relation I think, but a climate denier lobby group. I don't mind if she's bilking them but if she is of that mind she can fudge off with the rest of them.
 
scaramanga said:
People won't change until it's far too late.

For that matter, why should development step backwards? It's far better that 5bn people live a good life than 8bn live a bricky one.
Click to expand...

development doesn’t need to step backwards, quite the opposite really. I see it as a priority of quality (and therefore longevity) rather than quantity.

As for your second point it all depends on how you reduce the population by 3 billion.
 
DTA said:
development doesn’t need to step backwards, quite the opposite really. I see it as a priority of quality (and therefore longevity) rather than quantity.

As for your second point it all depends on how you reduce the population by 3 billion.
Click to expand...
Well, we should obviously reduce the biggest polluters first. That would make sense.
 
Rorschach said:
I'm not sure digging up your house counts as nimbyism.

She's taking money from First Corporate Consultants, owned by Terence Mordaunt. No relation I think, but a climate denier lobby group. I don't mind if she's bilking them but if she is of that mind she can fudge off with the rest of them.
Click to expand...
That's interesting, how do you know about them? Best I can find on them is a list of directors and owners.
 
DTA said:
possibly, but I think you would be better ending poverty as people have less kids when they become more wealthy and less people insecure.
Click to expand...
I'll try and dig out the study, but fertility rate is not inversely proportional to wealth.

It is inversely proportional to education and equality for women, which tends to (but doesn't always) correlate with wealth.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
I'll try and dig out the study, but fertility rate is not inversely proportional to wealth.

It is inversely proportional to education and equality for women, which tends to (but doesn't always) correlate with wealth.
Click to expand...

that’s the opposite of what I have read, but would be interested to see the study.

does the study state that there is no correlation or that there is a divergence at a certain level of wealth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back